Don't rush into Iraq war, Senate urges Bush

By Toby Harnden in Washington

12:01AM BST 01 Aug 2002

The American national debate over whether Saddam Hussein should be toppled began in earnest yesterday with leading senators urging President George W Bush not to rush into an ill-judged military adventure.

Opening public hearings into the wisdom of tackling Iraq, Senator Joe Biden, Democratic chairman of the Senate foreign relations committee, said the nature of the threat posed by Saddam, the human and economic costs of overthrowing him and the question of what regime would come afterwards all had to be examined.

He also questioned whether "attacking Saddam Hussein would precipitate the very thing we are trying to prevent - the last resort to weapons of mass destruction".

Senator Chuck Hagel, a Republican, said before the hearings: "In the 1960s we got into Vietnam by not asking the right questions . . . This is a serious issue, because there will be unintended consequences here. We need to answer some questions."

Another Republican, Senator Richard Lugar, echoed their caution. "We must estimate, soberly, the human and economic cost of war plans and post-war plans," he said. "This is a time for all of us to think through the cost and the dangers."

The holding of the hearings, due to be concluded today, was a sign of growing impatience on Capitol Hill at the secrecy surrounding the Bush administration's intentions towards Iraq.

Senators and congressmen have also been dismayed at the leaking of versions of two military plans in the New York Times and complained that the only information they are getting about Iraq is what they read in the newspapers.

There is a growing call for any military action to be authorised by Congress, as it was before the 1991 Gulf war. While this is not a constitutional requirement, Mr Bush may find it a political necessity.

Mr Biden said: "The decision to go to war can never be taken lightly. I believe that a foreign policy, especially one that involves the use of force, cannot be sustained in America without the informed consent of the American people."

Americans remain broadly supportive of taking action against Saddam. Senator Sam Brownback, a Republican, said there was "pretty strong unanimity in the Congress that at some point in time we're going to have to deal with this guy".

Mr Bush has been cool towards the idea of the hearings and declined to send administration officials to testify.

Outside the hearings, senior Bush advisers have been increasingly open about the intention to oust Saddam by military means.

On Tuesday, Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, spelt out the seriousness of the threat Saddam is believed to present. "They [the Iraqis] have chemical weapons and biological weapons and they have an appetite for nuclear weapons."

Richard Butler, a former head of the United Nations arms inspection body Unscom, told the hearings: "The key question now is: has Iraq acquired the essential fissionable material, either by enriching indigenous sources or by obtaining it from external sources?

"There is evidence that Saddam has reinvigorated his nuclear weapons programme in the inspection-free years."

The policy of containing Saddam, he said, was not enough to prevent the Iraqi leader increasing his capability to produce weapons of mass destruction and fanning the flames of violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Mr Butler said it was also possible that Saddam was considering using smallpox, Ebola or plague as biological weapons.

Khidir Hamza, a former director of the Iraqi nuclear weapons development programme who defected in1994, said Saddam could be just three years away from building nuclear weapons.

Citing German "intelligence sources", he said: "Iraq has enough to generate the needed bomb-grade ureaium for three nuclear weapons by 2005."